I first read Aperture in the 90s in my university library and was smitten. I had favorite issues I went back to over and over again. A few years ago I purchased a subscription and just never felt that same magic. Though I found tiny bits here and there that peaked my interest, most of the photographs were uninteresting and did not leave me with a desire to learn more.
Jim Roche has written a provocative and insightful piece on the once great photography journal: Aperture. While I agree with him that the magazine has become a shadow of its former self, the real problem is with the medium of photography in general. We seem to be hell-bent on making names for ourselves in order to have careers rather than figuring out how best to use cameras to make meaningful images about the world and how we see it.
I have this issue and a stack of other issues of Aperture - some old and some new. It's not the magazine thats changed its photography. As a recent(ish) MA Photography Graduate I could write many words on this but Aperture merely reflects what is happening in photography right now. It's the same with the BJP. I think it's one of the better photography magazines around though.
I was virtually flipping the pages with you, Jim, while reading your post. Without even having a copy of Aperture in front of me, I could immediately visualize the type of photography you were describing. Some of your own words were already forming in my mind before I read them on the page. Illustration. Instagram aesthetic. Lifestyle prop.
What I look for in art, and in photography as art, is the way it conjures emotion. What you describe mirrors exactly what I feel standing in front of certain books, portfolios or exhibitions. Photography meant only to please the eye or the mind, but with a lazy, standardized, feeble signal.
Let me finish your sentence: “I don’t think there is a single photograph in this I would want on my wall.” Or even my coffee table.
It’s about time Aperture featured Mr. Louis Mendes, who has been making street portraits in New York City for decades. He is also a mentor for many young and not so young photographers. A beloved figure, Mr. Mendes is one of New York’s treasures.
Sure, I remember talking with him several times. But, the article is pretty empty of deep thoughts, or really, any thoughts about what his work means. And as a photographer, if a magazine wanted to do an article about me and basically asked me to pose with my camera for THREE images, and not show my work, I’d be a bit disappointed.
Several years ago, I cancelled my Aperture subscription when it became a fashion magazine, advertising products for the upper middle class. I have several years of issues destined for the recycle bin.
If you were acquainted with Mr. Mendes and were disappointed with how Aperture featured him, say so, instead of using him as an anonymous participant in your critique of the magazine's decline.
I thought it was better not to get into naming people, as they are not the problem. His images were the strangest to me, three pages , not of his work, but instead of his camera. Thst seemed very questionable on the magazine's part. I believe that's what I said.
Taking on Aperture is quite an assignment! I haven’t looked at it for a while so I can’t speak to the specifics of the issue you saw. Your point though, is worth considering. I think social media, and Instagram in particular, at least prior to its focus on reels, has led to expectations that photos be composed to have immediate appeal, to have colors that will grab at first sight. The concept that a photograph might be worth spending time with is a foreign one. I see the same trend in art museums. With few exceptions, people go through exhibits quickly, often taking smartphone pix of the art, pix of the labels, and moving on. Are we as a society no longer willing to take the time to look—really look—and think about what we’re looking at? If your analysis of Aperture is correct, they may have fallen into the same mindset. Which would be a shame.
Thank you. I have not seen Apature for a long time. It saddens me to read it has gone this way. What you express is something I have been trying to understand for some time. You have explained the empty feeling I have had for so much of the photography I see, and am sometimes tucked into doing myself.
I think when I look through the entire edition, there is nothing that interests me. “Recontextualize?” Really? I’m trying to speak and write in a simple, jargon free and casual manner here…conversational. To me all these photos seem like life-style photos. Let’s not go off on some deeply theoretical path.
I first read Aperture in the 90s in my university library and was smitten. I had favorite issues I went back to over and over again. A few years ago I purchased a subscription and just never felt that same magic. Though I found tiny bits here and there that peaked my interest, most of the photographs were uninteresting and did not leave me with a desire to learn more.
Yes, same.
Jim Roche has written a provocative and insightful piece on the once great photography journal: Aperture. While I agree with him that the magazine has become a shadow of its former self, the real problem is with the medium of photography in general. We seem to be hell-bent on making names for ourselves in order to have careers rather than figuring out how best to use cameras to make meaningful images about the world and how we see it.
I have this issue and a stack of other issues of Aperture - some old and some new. It's not the magazine thats changed its photography. As a recent(ish) MA Photography Graduate I could write many words on this but Aperture merely reflects what is happening in photography right now. It's the same with the BJP. I think it's one of the better photography magazines around though.
Regretfully, we don’t get the BJP here in most stores. They stopped distributing a few years ago. I read them online, but I prefer the paper and ink.
I’m with you on Granta though. I love the way they handle photography.
I was virtually flipping the pages with you, Jim, while reading your post. Without even having a copy of Aperture in front of me, I could immediately visualize the type of photography you were describing. Some of your own words were already forming in my mind before I read them on the page. Illustration. Instagram aesthetic. Lifestyle prop.
What I look for in art, and in photography as art, is the way it conjures emotion. What you describe mirrors exactly what I feel standing in front of certain books, portfolios or exhibitions. Photography meant only to please the eye or the mind, but with a lazy, standardized, feeble signal.
Let me finish your sentence: “I don’t think there is a single photograph in this I would want on my wall.” Or even my coffee table.
Agree, completely. Now, to make things worse, everything I seem to read online appears AI-generated. It’s a sad mess.
It’s about time Aperture featured Mr. Louis Mendes, who has been making street portraits in New York City for decades. He is also a mentor for many young and not so young photographers. A beloved figure, Mr. Mendes is one of New York’s treasures.
Sure, I remember talking with him several times. But, the article is pretty empty of deep thoughts, or really, any thoughts about what his work means. And as a photographer, if a magazine wanted to do an article about me and basically asked me to pose with my camera for THREE images, and not show my work, I’d be a bit disappointed.
Several years ago, I cancelled my Aperture subscription when it became a fashion magazine, advertising products for the upper middle class. I have several years of issues destined for the recycle bin.
If you were acquainted with Mr. Mendes and were disappointed with how Aperture featured him, say so, instead of using him as an anonymous participant in your critique of the magazine's decline.
I thought it was better not to get into naming people, as they are not the problem. His images were the strangest to me, three pages , not of his work, but instead of his camera. Thst seemed very questionable on the magazine's part. I believe that's what I said.
Taking on Aperture is quite an assignment! I haven’t looked at it for a while so I can’t speak to the specifics of the issue you saw. Your point though, is worth considering. I think social media, and Instagram in particular, at least prior to its focus on reels, has led to expectations that photos be composed to have immediate appeal, to have colors that will grab at first sight. The concept that a photograph might be worth spending time with is a foreign one. I see the same trend in art museums. With few exceptions, people go through exhibits quickly, often taking smartphone pix of the art, pix of the labels, and moving on. Are we as a society no longer willing to take the time to look—really look—and think about what we’re looking at? If your analysis of Aperture is correct, they may have fallen into the same mindset. Which would be a shame.
Thank you. I have not seen Apature for a long time. It saddens me to read it has gone this way. What you express is something I have been trying to understand for some time. You have explained the empty feeling I have had for so much of the photography I see, and am sometimes tucked into doing myself.
I think when I look through the entire edition, there is nothing that interests me. “Recontextualize?” Really? I’m trying to speak and write in a simple, jargon free and casual manner here…conversational. To me all these photos seem like life-style photos. Let’s not go off on some deeply theoretical path.